High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt.Hanamava W/O Yamanappa … vs Yamanappa on 16 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt.Hanamava W/O Yamanappa … vs Yamanappa on 16 October, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF 0CTOBER,:.~«~2';.'{3_Q~'EV3.__'_.E'  _;" 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.v'\)ENuc.QPALA  

CRIMINAL PEr1'r1oi~zv.I§o; 3s¢;goa7 EA    

BETWEEN:

AND:

Smt.Hanamavva*'~.__ . _' V 
W/o. Yamanappa'*«.Shiya.pu;.f';  "
Age: 40 years, Occ: INN  
R/0: Bachinagudc!a,--v..f'~ ' '
Tal Bada.miyy_   E. 
Dist: Ba3.gaf!3ii3't_. . E'

 PETITIONER

(By sri, s,e;s.;;+emm,Aam j

   
S/0.Devarayappa--._Sh~i'vapur

Age; 52 years,

,_""{)<:;c; A,gricuftu.*e----«"
_  R/cijeachinagudda Now at Malfur
  ~Ta'.'v:4 'I'~Eungu~nd,
 Dnst§"--«£3_ag.a!Vk'ot

A "'««..Sri.,_'Ni n.ugf'aAppa

S,/o.£)evarayappa Hafigeri

..  Age»: 52 years,
* V "Occ: Agricufture
 R'/o.Bachinagudda

Tat: Badami,
Dist: Bagaikot.



 

3 Sri.Laxman

S/o.Mahadevappa Haligeri

Age: 32 years,

Occ: Agriculture

R/o: Bachinagudda,

Tal: Badami,

Dist: Bagalkot.   

4 Sri.Sharanabasappa
S/o.Yenkappa Hanamasagar
Age: 50 years, " 
Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Bachinaguclda,
Tal: Badami,  
Dist: Bagaikot.    _
'- _  1 s  RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K.Varapras'a'd,~A:1v'for_R 1  'R 3 absent.)
(By Smt.Sn'a«stiikala, Adv forAR4¥~--absent.)

This C=irl.P_..Z"s filed un'der Section 482 of CR.P.C. by the
Advocate for~_t'i1e<.:;..,R5Vetit'io.ner' -p_ra_ying to set aside the
impugne'd" "e..order'?j" _"td". 08.11.06 passed in
CR.MISC.No.~120}"~O4_» on "t~!.?1e"~..fi'le' of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) &
JMFC., BADAM1. e V    

This 'C'r~l.,P' .hVa~vin'gV"t$een reserved for Orders on
06/1Q,!2'G0.9, coirni.ng on for pronouncement this day. The

 * «CAour«-lZ._'i3rc;nAou.nced theiollowing;

ORDER

“”‘Peti%.:ionefr is the wife of respondent No.1. She filed a

it ” 2 “‘petitiQn fof maintenance against respondent No.1 under Sec.

‘of’:Cr.P.C. The petition was allowed and an order for

it lgpaynaent of maintenance was passed. Respondent No.1 did

$2.

E,»

/~

12

reconsider the matter in accordance with law and

pass order keeping in view the findings

27/O3/2006.

All the contention’s”t’e<_)fboth faregleft open

for consideratibn by below.

the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in

I36/2006 and 137/2_OAQ6_ vi:d’e”‘*€)~;-.;ié:~fj_..dtc1.'”